Suchergebnisse

Participant interaction is said to be the hallmark of the focus group method, but a number of studies suggest that the defining feature of the method is virtually absent in most focus group research. Our meta-analysis of this debate over participant interaction in the focus group literature suggests that absence of interaction data reflects a philosophical position, rather than neglect. Participant interaction is treated differently in different types of research, reflecting a tacit division between researchers who view the participants primarily as individuals sharing held truths and those who view them as social beings co-constructing meaning while in the focus group. We question the habit of making assumptions about the 'proper' use of participant interaction and call for further reflection on its role and usage in light of the aim of each study. We argue that the treatment of participant interaction needs to be a conscious and explicit design decision – one clearly rooted in a theoretical perspective and best suited to the research purpose. While exploring this issue, we discuss how a researcher's lens affects how they deal with the interaction of participants, what they view as strengths and limitations of the method, and what kinds of results they end up with. We provide an overview of alternative approaches to participant interaction, offer strategies from different disciplines for analysing interaction, and propose a continuum of use demonstrating a range of options for when to use interaction.

The objective of this report is to illuminate the complex ways in which science is produced, used or otherwise of importance to Brazilian climate policies and politics and how it is interlinked with culture, power and politics, including the large number of factors that variously constrain or facilitate climate-related policy. It discusses arguments and evidence ofhow geopolitics, socio-cultural and political perspectives, and trust or lack thereof, shape – orare perceived to shape various lines of knowledge production, contestation and mobilization related to climate change and the negotiations under the United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It argues for the need to understand the existence and consequences of distrust between the global North and South (i.e., industrialized countries and the developing countries) in climate related affairs, including the causes ofmistrust and, in particular, connections between distrust and disparities in both power andnational capacities to produce and frame the knowledge used in climate negotiations.Many developing countries lack the knowledge and support offered by social and economic infrastructure, scientific and technological capability when facing international negotiation onclimate change, and there are indications that this – in addition to equity and participationconcerns – troubles leaders of such countries and affects general receptivity to agendas, processes and reports associated with the IPCC, the UNFCCC and associated institutions suchas the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) under the direction of the World Bank. The reportpoints out that it is necessary to investigate the role of such concerns on the part of Brazilianpolitical leaders involved in the climate negotiations. An important contribution lies in the mere fact of documenting climate-related knowledge, processes and politics in Brazil. By contrast to richer nations in the world, and perhaps alsosome less developed countries (LDCs), there is an astonishing small amount of actualdocuments produced by the Brazilian government about Brazil's climate science capacity,knowledge gaps, and policies. The reasons for this need to be understood in terms of technicalas well as socio-cultural and political factors, as scarcity of studies and communicationconcerning such things as impact and vulnerability studies limits the mobilization of civilsociety on the issue of climate change, an important stimulus of social change and policy inLatin America.

The focus group is a research methodology in which a small group of participants gathers to discuss a specified issue under the guidance of a moderator. The discussions are tape-recorded, transcribed and analysed. Notably, the interaction between focus group participants has seldom been evaluated, analysed or discussed in empirical research. We argue that considering the focus group in light of current research into interaction in problem-based learning (PBL) tutorial groups would facilitate the deliberate exploitation of group processes in designing focus groups, staging data collection and analysing and interpreting data. When the analytical focus shifts from mere content analysis to an analysis of what the participants themselves are trying to learn, one can explore not only what the participants are talking about, but also how they are trying to understand and conceptualise the issue under discussion.

For many in the Global North, urban life means that your shit is not your problem. We postulate that a possible reason for the global sanitation failure in urban areas is a disconnect between sanitation expectations—what we term the urban sanitation imaginary—and the practices required by proposed sanitation solutions. The case study presented here is based on interviews with residents of Villa Lamadrid, a marginalized neighborhood in Buenos Aires, Argentina, which faces significant public health impacts from an inadequate sewage management system. We solicited feedback regarding specific sanitation technologies frequently prescribed for poor urban communities—among them a urine diversion dry toilet with dehydration vaults. Even as this system is posited as 'sustainable' for the context of Villa Lamadrid in terms of ecological and economic factors, conversations with residents revealed why this option might not be sustainable in terms of social expectations. On the basis of interviews with community members we have defined four aspects of residents' urban sanitation imaginaries that we consider highly relevant for any consideration of sanitation solutions in this context: (1) an urban citizen does not engage physically or mentally with their shit or its management; (2) an appropriate urban sanitation system requires flushing; (3) systems that require user's engagement with their shit and its management signify rural, underdeveloped, and backward lifestyles; and (4) urban sanitation is a state responsibility, not a local one. Highlighting the urban sanitation imaginary methodologically and analytically goes beyond a discussion of culturally and contextually appropriate technologies. It examines linkages between user expectations and notions of urban citizenship and modernity. Ultimately it also draws attention to the sociopolitical dynamics and environmental justice issues embedded in discussions of sanitation and hygiene. While some of our results are specific to the Villa Lamadrid context, our research more generally suggests the need to consider sanitation imaginaries to reframe the discussion on sanitation interventions, particularly in underserved and impoverished urban areas.

AbstractSeveral scholars have proposed that values embedded in science are a central reason why more research does not necessarily resolve scientific controversies around complex environmental issues. In the Capital Regional District, British Columbia, Canada, scientists have positioned themselves for and against the construction of a wastewater treatment plant in a debate framed as purely technical. This study explores the link between the scientists' positions in the debate and the way they, in their scientific publications, portray nature and environmental risks. We performed a qualitative content analysis of peer‐reviewed publications by scientists who have publicly taken opposing positions in the controversy. We found that scientists against treatment predominantly frame nature as tolerant, up to a limit, to disturbances and potential risks, and they seem to embrace a view of science as capable of reducing uncertainties. In contrast, scientists in favor of treatment predominantly portray nature as fragile, particularly toward human‐mobilized environmental risks and they commonly present scientific uncertainty as worrisome based on potentially harmful consequences. Our study suggests that value‐laden perspectives impact scientists' positions even in a seemingly technical controversy.